As government expands, liberty contracts
(Ronnie Reagan)
I am the Way, the Truth and the Light
(Jesus Christ)

When someone refers to a frog, the idea that many people may get is the common variety that we see in ponds and so forth. If you study on it, you will see that there are many types in diverse areas. (Saddle up for a ride in the desert, you may notice that there are some living out there as well.) Then there are tree frogs, and others. When I was reading this article, I expected something mundane, and almost croaked out "Oh, no". Then I realized that I had better hop to it and write it up for all y'all."Enough of the frog puns, Cowboy Bob!"It's a good thing you toad me, or I might continue. So anyway...Credit: Freeimanges / Robert BadgleyFrogs and toads live in different environments, as I have mentioned. They are able to survive harsh conditions (some frogs can freeze solid and "come back to life" when warm weather returns), and even have interesting defensive mechanisms. Ever hear of "toad licking"? Some owlhoots extract the defensive skin venom of the Colorado River Toad and process it so they can get high. Others actually lick the critters. This is pushing the toads toward extinction, and can lead to the extinction of some individuals. Helpful hint: better keep away from poison dart frogs, Ferdinand.The reproduction methods of frogs varies. Tadpoles are the young 'uns, looking very different from their parents for a spell, but they have the genetic information programmed by the Creator to grow up into what we expect to see.Seeing a familiar frog afresh is a wonderful way to be more stunned by the exotic forms. So what is this familiar frog? For the US citizen, it is usually a member of the true frog family (Ranidae) that resides around ponds, lakes, and streams. As a rule, these frogs sit at the water’s edge, have slimy skin, plunge into the water at the least disturbance, and lay gobs of jelly-coated eggs in clusters. These eggs hatch into tadpoles that primarily eat algae and aquatic plants. Many of us have taken them home in a bucket to rear into frogs, an attempt that was sometimes successful if our mother dutifully kept us on task. These typical frogs are a nice, predictable platform from which we can be flabbergasted at fantastical frog life.To read the entire article, click on "Wonder Jumpstart". allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3TD1SFbPRHg" width="560">[...]

by Cowboy Bob SorensenThe secular science industry is conveniently providing illustrations of the need for Question Evolution Day, and are providing them in a big way. Mighty obliging of them. Although science is supposed to be the search for knowledge, the word science is equated with vertical evolution, and contrary views are not only discouraged, but actively suppressed. A paper was recalled because the authors had the audacity to use the word creator. Evolutionists bushwhacked Mary Schweitzer because of her work on dinosaur soft tissues. Darwin deniers are harassed and even fired because of their views, not because of their job performance. Most of this was made at Atom SmasherHave you noticed that logic and critical thinking are actively discouraged instead of taught in schools nowadays? Bullying and ridicule from Darwin's microcephalic children ensue, again equating evolution with science and inferring that creationists are bad people with "agendas". Yet, secularists have agendas, and seek to protect their death cult of evolutionism from scrutiny.Their double standards include allowing bullying of Christians and creationists because we "deserve it", as I've seen a few tinhorns say. Some will even reflexively call us "liars" because they dislike (or do not understand) evidence we present. Those actions are nothing less than unabashed bigotry, old son. allowfullscreen="" class="giphy-embed" frameborder="0" height="275" src="https://giphy.com/embed/vg1ewVKZkCwFy" width="480">What really takes the rag off the bush is when a minor government official in India apparently not only doubted Darwin, but misrepresented it. Circle the wagons! Someone did not kneel before Darwin, blessed be! The outcry in India is actually funny in some ways, but it clearly illustrates the desperation of Darwinoids. Instead of telling the man that he said something wrong, and instead of responding rationally with the true spirit of science, people went plumb loco. This is what thinking people are up against. And some try to tell us that evolutionism and atheism are not religions? Wouldn't it be nice if they were honest for once? Secularists have repeatedly shown that they do not believe in intellectual, academic, professional, speech, religious, and other freedoms. And it is escalating.There’s no escape. You can’t flee anywhere in the world if you doubt Darwin.Look at this headline in Nature News: “Anti-Darwin comments in India outrage scientists.” It doesn’t say that scientists (defined here as members of Nature's opinion of acceptable materialists who pay homage to Darwin) merely “disagree” with the comments. It doesn’t say that they feel such comments are misinformed. No; Nature reporter T. V. Padma says the comments 'outrage' scientists (scream when you say that!). The word implies hate, intolerance, and mob psychology. The subtitle is even more disturbing: “Researchers and government officials have condemned the statements of a junior minister who questioned the theory of evolution.” The priests of Darwin want to send this minister to materialist hell for the unpardonable sin!To read the rest, click on "Big Science Condemns Blasphemy Against Darwin". allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/fswX_wJ63cc?rel=0" width="560">[...]

Although a decent bicycle is affordable for most people, bicycle racing for prize money requires some expensive and specialized equipment. Research has been done on aerodynamics, as well as making the frames themselves both stronger and lighter. The wheel design is also extremely important, as crosswinds can be dangerous, whether indoors or on the open road. Credit: Pixabay / John R PerryBiomimetics is the concept of taking what is found in nature and applying it for our use. I can just imagine a scene in a Zipp Speed Weaponry meeting where they were looking for inspiration to improve bicycle wheels. "You're taking inspiration from the lumps on the pectoral fins of humpback whales? Sure, that's the first place to look!" They were able to make a successful and safer wheel, and see them around $1,800 USD for just the front wheel. You'd better be a well-heeled or sponsored serious racer to buy those, pilgrim.Unfortunately, they were not considering that organisms in nature were designed, so these owlhoots got all pantheistic on us and gave credit to "nature", as if it was a person (fallacy of reification). Hail Darwin, blessed be! Nature does not select or evolve something for a purpose, though many people act that way. Give the Master Engineer credit, you savvy? It makes far more sense to approach life from a design perspective rather than a Darwinian death cult worldview. The report on Zipp’s new wheels is a clear example of how evolutionists are content to plug a massive void of empirical evidence with their faith that nature somehow exercises agency, “At the unveiling of the 454s in London Wednesday night, Zipp engineers repeatedly turned to the idea of biomimicry, an old concept of approaching engineering problems by looking to how nature has solved them.” But nature can’t solve anything because it has no mind or will—it can’t think, plan, or build.To read the article in its entirety, click on "Whale Fin Inspires Safer Racing Wheels". Also, you may want to see this self-serving video: width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J10KEqVD6JM/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J10KEqVD6JM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>[...]

Using a priori assumptions and circular reasoning, advocates of universal common ancestor evolution are definitely not objective. They assume Darwinism so they can prove it, and interpret data through that particular filter. Okay, scientists do that. We all interpret information through our worldviews and presuppositions.

The secular science industry goes beyond the expected human biases and frailties, however. Evolutionism is required, creation science and intelligent design are rejected out of hand, and the catechism is strictly enforced. Independent thought, especially any possibility of questioning evolution, cannot be tolerated. Researchers are chastised if they dare to forget to envision Darwin before they interpret data and present papers. And don't even think about presenting anything contrary to the consensus, ain't no way!

When the evidence doesn’t fit evolutionary theory, guess what has to change?

The king is dead. Long live the king!

This contradictory set of sentences could be used to describe King Charles (Darwin). Whenever he dies, he lives long—his theory does, at least. We’ve seen Darwinism falsified so many times, it’s become routine. Now, evolutionists at the University of Texas would like to forestall any upcoming falsifications that might make young trainees’ minds wander. Their method: always force-fit genetic evidence that contradicts evolutionary expectations into a “phylogenetic context.” Evolution first! That’s the new strategy, according to their paper in PNAS:

Dr. Richard Lensi has done a prairie schooner full of research on E. coli bacteria, but is not getting the results that he wanted. Some folks say that his work is suspect because he does not share his material with others, but why should he? Like the old joke about scientists who said that they could create man and God is superfluous, so they challenged God in a man-making experiment and God said, "Get your own dirt". Well, get your own bacteria. Unlike tinhorns who call creationists "liars" because they do not like the conclusions reached by creationists, there is no reason to accuse Lenski of dishonesty. However, his conclusions are fair game. allowfullscreen="" class="giphy-embed" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://giphy.com/embed/3og0IPTGr8Qzq9oRZm" width="350">via GIPHYSome of the Evo Sith look to Dr. Lenski as giving proof that Darwin was right.That'll be the day! What did he begin with? Bacteria. After tens of thousands of generations, what does he have? The same kind of bacteria, with a few variations. Now, if the E. coli had managed to coalesce, steal his car keys, and go watch the Spartans win against the Wolverines, I'd be impressed. But upon deeper examination of the mutations of the DNA in the cultures, we actually see evidence of the Master Engineer's design.When people discuss evidence for evolution, they often cite the work of Richard Lenski at Michigan State University. He has been growing E. coli in the lab for nearly 30 years. Lenski’s work is phenomenal and worth a look, but from a creationist perspective. The biggest problem with Lenski’s work is not the work itself, but the interpretation of it. Recently, Lenski’s E. coli reached over 60,000 generations, and Lenski published a description of their observations. This article will scrutinize the claim that Lenski’s work for over 60,000 generations is evolution-in-action. When studied with the correct biblical worldview, Lenski’s E. coli demonstrate an amazingly complex showcase for design by an all-knowing Creator.Richard Lenski has been growing E. coli for over 60,000 generations.While Lenski’s work is great, there has been some misunderstanding about what it shows.There are significant problems with the interpretation of Lenski’s results.The citT mutation is claimed to be proof of evolution, but is actually proof of creation.E. coli remains E. coli.Richard Lenski does amazing science. He has been growing Escherichia coli (E. coli) in the laboratory for nearly 30 years. In 1988, Lenski set up 12 cultures of E. coli and allowed them to grow overnight. The following morning, he transferred them to a fresh culture and allowed them to continue growing. Lenski’s lab has been transferring those cultures now for over 60,000 generations, and he regularly publishes updates about those cultures. Lenski’s cultures are cited by evolutionists as being proof of evolution in action, but that is not the case. Upon closer inspection of what Lenski is actually doing, we can see that his experiments support a biblical worldview and demonstrate the flexibility of God’s creation over time.That's the abstract. To finish reading the entire article, click on "Celebrating Over 60,000 Generations of Creation Science by an Evolutionist". [...]

Solar and lunar eclipses are fascinating, and scientists are especially fond of them. Especially solar eclipses, because they can do testing and observe things out yonder that cannot be seen under normal conditions. Those are more difficult to participate in because the area of totality is quite limited, unlike the wide area available during a lunar eclipse. As a side note, a transit is when a smaller object travels between a star and the observer, such as when Mercury and Venus transit the sun. No big crowed events for those, just wait for photos from experts instead.

Conditions have to be just right for a major eclipse to occur. The moon passes in front of the sun and makes day seem to be almost night in certain areas for a few minutes. When Earth gets the notion to get between the sun and moon, so the moon appears red or orange for a while. These things happen because the Creator designed the corresponding distances of the sun, moon, and Earth. Just another reminder of his power, design skills, and of recent creation. People had a special experience during the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse.

From Oregon to South Carolina, people used special eclipse glasses to watch the moon slowly move in front of the sun over the course of about an hour, culminating in a few minutes of darkness during ‘totality’. The brief period where the moon completely blocks out the sun, leaving only the corona visible and resulting in what looks like twilight across the entire horizon. In the rest of the country, only a partial eclipse was visible.

To read the entire article (it's short, and not packed with heavy science), click on "Eclipses".

More puzzling for evolutionists is the placental mammal. The placenta is integral in such live births, and is an extremely intricate organ inside the mother that protects the baby and helps its development. Interestingly, the placenta is cast off after the birthing is done. Clearly, our Creator shows his skill and compassion in his design of the placenta.

The complex mammalian placenta is an organ to which, in a sense, we all owe our lives. It’s formed by the fusion of maternal and embryonic tissues and establishes vascular contact between mother and child at the onset of pregnancy.

Here is an idea that should sound like a whole whack of fun. We can all go looking for fossil forests! The first place that should come to your mind to search for a fossil forest would be Antarctica. "Wait, what?"Yes, you heard me. The South Pole. At one time, it was not the snowy wasteland we see today, but it was a tropical place to which someone may want to retire. That means it should not be such a shock to learn that a fossil forest was discovered there.Original image credit: William A Link, USGS (public domain),modified with a graphic from Clker clipart(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)Not all reports of the fossil forest give complete information. For one thing, the word "fossil" is used loosely again, because the stumps have not turned completely to stone. Another fact that has been omitted from one report (as well as the very brief video report below) is that amino acids still exist. Obviously, that have not turned to stone. In addition, the trees were "advanced" according to proponents of universal common ancestor evolution. That is not supposed to happen, but other "advanced" trees have been found as well. Intricate, specifically complex trees and well-preserved fossils... The evidence does not support deep time or evolution. Instead, it supports recent creation and rapid burial that would be expected from the global Genesis Flood. Claimed to be 280 million years old, stumps of fossil trees retain original material in the world’s coldest climate.The roots are still attached to a stump emerging from the ground in Antarctica. In the photo on Live Science, paleobiologists led by Erik Gulbranson claim that forests grew here from 400 million to 14 million Darwin Years ago, “which is basically the entirety of plant evolution.”The article focuses on how the forests changed over millions of years, and speculates about the Permian-Triassic extinction and what it meant for evolution. The most astonishing part of the story, however, is near the end:I won't leave you stumped. You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Fossil Forest Found in Antarctica". A similar article can be found at "Fossil Trees in Antarctica Preserve Ancient Proteins". For examples of bad reasoning, see this jasper railing against the second article linked just above and see if you can count all the fallacies in his anti-creationist bigotry. allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/dMOsqVYtKg0?rel=0" width="560">[...]

The poinsettia (correctly pronounced with four syllables, poin-SET-e-uh) is closely associated with Christmas, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Riding down Mexico way, you will come to the area where they were first discovered. The plants we see in the stores are not likely to be "natural", but grafted and cultivated — their history is rather interesting.Credit: RGBStock / APRILMPoinsettias tend to bloom around the date that is observed as Christmas, so we have that going for us. It is also associated with Jesus, since some folks associate the star shape with the star of Bethlehem, and the red coloring with the blood of Jesus. There are rumors that this plant is poisonous, but that's the opposite of the truth. Someone may get sick by eating them, so leave them out of your Christmas salad. Also, they are not poisonous to pets, but again, they may get sick if they take a notion to eat the things. There are other plants that people and animals need to keep out of their mouths.Interestingly, they are cleansing to the air. Back in the olden days, the sap was used for several purposes including fever potions, toothache remedy, and others (I don't recommend such activities). Also, they were used to make red dye. Nowadays, they are cultivated into different colors and such, and you can even purchase poinsettias that are far from their natural colors but look nice to some people. Poinsettias are finicky plants, but if you give them proper care, they can stay around and look good for a spell. Like so many other plants, the poinsettia is a gift from our Creator for our pleasure and benefit.Few things signal the start of the Christmas season in the West quite like the poinsettia. We even have a day to celebrate this cheery plant on December 12—National Poinsettia Day. How gracious of the Creator that, in a season when most plants are dead or dormant, he designed the radiant poinsettia to bloom in winter, adding a splash of color to brighten the dismal days.To read the rest, click on "How the Poinsettia Came to Brighten Christmas". allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WDl1ivzeTBA?rel=0" width="560">[...]

Seems like the hands at the Darwin Ranch should leave bad enough alone, but they commence to analyzing fossils with new technology and getting surprised. This is happening more often, what with advances in technology and all. Some recent stories indicate unexpected finds, including the advanced digestion of trilobites that do not fit the "primitive" creatures paradigm of Darwinists. They're supposed to be simple creatures, you know. Another find is not so much what an ancient amphibian ate, but that this froggie-thing had sharp, pointy teeth. This means "evolution" by a loss of features, and that's the opposite of what their dogma requires. Ichthyosaurs apparently ate squid, and not just fish, as paleontologist believed for so many years. Similarly, a salamander ate frogs, but that is not exactly common dining procedure for those critters today.All these finds succeed in doing is to fluster evolutionists. They wanted to advanced the evolutionary cause, but that did not happen. The bigger picture here is that these specimens were well-preserved — so much so that many last meals can be determined. This is contrary to the slow, gradual fossilization beliefs prevalent today. What could cause such fossilization? Rapid burial. What would lead to the rapid burial of billions of things in fossils laid down by water, worldwide? The Genesis Flood is the best answer.To read in more detail what was introduced here, click on "Fossil Food Finds Change Evolutionary Stories".

G'day ladies and Bruces. Educational systems utilize propaganda techniques quite effectively, so most of us can recite the dogmas in unison. The creed pertinent to this article is that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. If you add the line about an asteroid impact causing the extinction, evolutionists who reject that concept may frown, but you'll be given a pat on the head and a food reward for your answer. Biblical creationists point out flaws in evolutionary doctrines, raise questions, and give evidence for recent creation — things Darwinian indoctrinators get on the prod when we present inconvenient evidence. This includes evidence from history, and possible modern sightings, of dinosaurs.Credit: Pixabay / Gerd AltmannSecularists get mighty angry when the controversial Angkor Wat stegosaurus carvings are discussed, and commence to doing hand waving because it threatens their paradigm. Similarly, the Australian aborigines have some interesting stories of various monsters. Some of these were clearly the stuff of legend, but others seem to have had a basis in history. Aborigines who have never seen fossils identified the critters based on legends handed down, and had some other startling things to say. The following article is from 1998, but still has some extremely interesting information that is not easily dismissed by intellectually honest folks. Evidence indicates that not only was the universe created, but this was far more recent than materialists want to accept.The myths and legends of the Aboriginal people, including their accounts of the creation of the world, are known as the Dreamtime. Such stories feature monsters, of whom many are mythological. Others, however, may have reference to real creatures, the Aborigines even insisting on their past ‘flesh-and-blood’ existence. Some of them are reminiscent of animals regarded as prehistoric, which supposedly became extinct tens of thousands, or even millions of years ago.Aborigines did not keep written records—their knowledge and traditions were passed orally from one generation to the next. Such oral traditions tend not to last more than a few hundred years without being distorted out of recognition. This would suggest that some of these animals may have still been living in Australia some two to three hundred years ago, or even more recently.To read the rest of the article in its entirety, click on "Australia’s Aborigines … did they see dinosaurs?" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ijlAi80Iv_Q?rel=0" width="560">[...]

Many people know that sloths are slow-moving and sleep quite a bit, but there are some things about them that are surprisingly interesting. They also show how the Master Engineer designed them for energy efficiency and their unique lifestyles. Sloths can move fast if they have a mind to, like escaping a predator and such. Tremendous swimmers, too. Seems like the face has a smile, but it's up to you if it's cute, creepy, or something else.

These critters are synonymous with laziness, but lazy folks are not designed for such energy conservation like the sloth. They spend most of their time in the trees, much of it hanging upside down, but they are designed so their internal organs are not distressed. Since they spend so much time being stationary, you could almost write letters on them. (Ambiguity humor there... stationary... letters... skip it.) Smaller creatures make their homes and live their lives on sloths. I reckon this animal is an example of our Creator's diversity on display, and maybe a bit of his sense of humor.

Bits of sunlight stream through the thick rainforest canopy, settling on a ball of fur clinging to a branch. Slowly, ever so slowly, the ball of fur uncurls, blinks once or twice, then slowly, ever so slowly, reaches for a nearby branch, and slowly, ever so slowly, begins munching. Several minutes later, it blinks and, slowly, closes its eyes to take its 17th nap of the day, not even 100 feet from where it woke up that morning.

This creature is of course the three-toed sloth, one of the slowest animals in the world. In fact its metabolic rate is 31% that of two-toed sloths, making it a slowpoke even among other sloth species.

A basic tenet of universal common ancestor evolution is that the simpler things change vertically and become more complex. Looks good in pixels and on paper, but evolutionists are having a rough time giving plausible support for their conjectures. Some seem a mite confused, equating loss of features with upward evolution. This has been said about the cave fish that lost eyes, locomotion of the snake, and so on. Now we have a new example of propaganda where the spin is faster than those of my hard drive.

Using naturalistic presuppositions, a study on genetics failed to give any evidence of human evolution. That doesn't stop the lapdog secular science media from saying that evidence for evolution was discovered. Some modifications were shown, and devolution was evidence that Darwin was right. (Do those clowns work for the leftist news media, too?) Reality seems to elude them. Genetics actually shows that humans cannot be the age Darwinists require, and the logical conclusion is that we were created recently. The results of the study fit in mighty fine with what creationists expect.

The recent publication of a research paper evoked such headlines as “Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving.” Despite the improvement of health-care technology, many other studies indicate that chronic disease among humans is increasing worldwide—and that mutations are commonly associated with disease, not upward evolutionary improvement. A closer analysis of this new study shows that its evolutionary conclusions are deeply flawed and humans are actually devolving. This is exactly what modern biomedical data shows and the Bible indicates is happening due to the effects of the Fall where the whole creation is subject to corruption.

It is not secret that the only fossil evidence for particles-to-paleontologist evolution exists in the minds of the secular science industry and propagandists. There are biologists who disingenuously claim that practically every little change is "evolution". False fossils and equivocation aside, since there is no actual scientific evidence or plausible models for evolution, these owlhoots use another fact-free "explanation" for what cannot be explained scientifically: convergent evolution.Simply put, to invoke the miracle of convergent evolution is an act of foolishness. Take a passel of assertions about how critters evolved, find other critters that have similar traits, and give homage to Papa Darwin. Then pass it off as "science" and collect grant money. Pseudoscience for fun and profit. We have more examples of forcing fossils to fit the narrative. Pretty desperate to avoid the harsh reality that God created the world recently, and the Genesis Flood supports paleontological and geological evidence. Evolutionists, drop the pseudoscience and deal with the truth, savvy? Before I send you to the article, I have to let you know that when the author uses, "Who’s we, Paleface?" and similar quips, he's making reference to an old Lone Ranger joke.When unrelated fossils have similar traits, evolutionary paleontologists twist, shove and stuff them into Darwin’s theory with an all-purpose tool called convergence.It wasn’t supposed to work this way. Animals were supposed to diverge as they evolved. Branches on real trees do that. In neo-Darwinism, the branch tips in Darwin’s image of a branching tree should get farther apart the more they evolve, because neither branch knows what the other one is doing. But the real world is full of counter-examples, where unrelated animals end up becoming very similar. Even more often, fossils exhibit “mosaics” of traits from different branches, or from “stem” (early) or “crown” (mature) members of a single branch. It’s all very confusing to Mr. Darwin, so his disciples invented a trick to keep from getting their story falsified. It’s called convergence, and here’s how it works. (Note: Not being Darwinians, we will dispute inclusion in the occasional first-person plural pronouns.)To keep reading and see the examples, click on "Convergence Crams Uncooperative Fossils into Darwinism". allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NasV4omER4A?rel=0" width="560">[...]

Some folks insist on proclaiming that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and say it as if that's the fact, Jack. Although dinosaur-to-bird evolution is a popular dogma, it is not settled science. Some evolutionary scientists do not even accept that opinion. Also, there is considerable disagreement about which dinosaurs evolved into birds. Some say that there is insufficient evidence for a view, so they postulate another candidate for bird ancestry, which also has no evidence. Then there are the evolutionists who go the opposite way, and say that some birds evolved into dinosaurs!Archaeopteryx lithographica credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ballista (GFDL 1.2)If you reign in and spend a few moments pondering, you can see that there are many serious problems with the dino-to-bird concept. These include the fact that fossils of modern birds and dinosaurs have been found together, there is no evidence of bird evolution, evolutionists haven't a clue about alleged bird-to-dino changes, the incredible variety of birds, and so on. Then you have all the massive physiological changes that need to occur, such as flight and breathing. These need to have occurred at the same time, else the critter would ring down the curtain and join the choir invisible. No, dinosaurs and birds were created, and Darwin's disciples cannot change that fact.A review of the extensive literature covering the more popular theories of the evolution of birds was completed. Of the numerous theories proposed, all were found to be problematic, and for this reason most are now rejected by evolutionists. The most popular current theory, the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, was briefly reviewed, and also found to suffer from major problems, some of which were discussed. The major problem is the differences between birds and both reptiles and mammals, and the fossil record has not been of much help in solving this evolutionary problem. Nor have genetic or biochemical comparisons.To read the rest, click on "Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy". Also, you may want to read about soft tissues that were discovered in bird fossils. In related and more recent news:A new discovery forced a rewrite of bird evolution. Chinese fossil discoveries ballooned the number of birds found among dinosaur-containing rocks. Until now, the oldest Chinese fossil birds, found in Lower Cretaceous deposits, had unique anatomies that seemed better suited for climbing or occasional gliding than for powered flight like most modern birds. However, Upper Cretaceous deposits have long revealed modern-looking bird anatomies. The supposed time difference between Lower and Upper layers permitted around 40 million years for modern bird anatomy to evolve. But it only takes one good fact to shoot a bad story out of the sky.For the rest of that article, click on "Bird Evolution Story Crash-Lands".Finally, here is a combination screenshot from an atheopath that is so determined to contradict creationists, he makes a fool of himself, showing his ignorance of the subject and apparently making up his own "facts" through arbitrary assertions. This character demonstrates my contention that he does not even read the material he "debunks", and supports my contention that rabid anti-creationists are afraid to read creationary articles or watch videos because then, they may realize that God is the Creator and Judge, and they are facing a terrible eternity.Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes[...]

We know about predators in the wild: a lion sees a gazelle, kills, eats. A cousin of the predator is the parasite, which does not kill the (usually unwilling) host outright, but depends on the host for its own survival. It may eventually kill the host. There are predators and parasites in the world of insects. A particularly nasty form is in the form of parasitoid wasps.Credit: CSIRO science imageSome people wonder, "What good are wasps and their other stinging relatives? They don't make honey, and a hornet packs a mighty big punch in its stinger." Well, I certainly don't want their company, either. But they do have uses of which we are unaware, such as controlling other insect pests and doing pollination. Some of that control comes from predation — and parasitism. They parasitoid wasps (many of which are extremely small) immobilize and even control the host through venom. Then it places eggs in or on the hapless host, and when they hatch, they feed on it. When the host dies, they don't pay it no nevermind, its services are no longer required. Kind of makes me reluctant to use the word host in polite society, because human hosts for shindigs are willing and tend to survive the events.Someone pointed out that the "face hugger" in the first Alien movie was parasitoid, as the unfortunate crew member discovered. Didn't it happen in Alien 3, too, with Sigourney Weaver's character as she was sacrificing herself? Then they brought her back in the next sequel as a clone; the same thing only different. Being parasitoidal (is that a real word?) is similar to what evolutionary conjectures do to real science, if you study on it.Anyway, the parasitoid term is an evolutionary classification. Not because of science, but because of wishful thinking and ipse dixit. Whoopsie daisy! Y'all can tell I got a mite involved in doing research before posting to the main article about serious scientific research on venom. Where did venom originate? Evolutionists learn more and can explain less, as the genetics and varieties involved in venom are beyond their ken. Still they give homage to Darwin, blessed be! How did attack-defense mechanisms with venom occur when creation was very good in the beginning? Biblical creationists have some reasonable speculations to offer.Providing food for one’s younglings is perhaps a mother’s most basic job, even for a mother wasp. Parasitoid wasps do this in a rather gruesome way. They lay their eggs in or on another arthropod, like a caterpillar, cockroach, or spider. When the eggs hatch, their parasitic larvae slowly consume the victim’s body, deriving nourishment and protection until they are ready to go forth into the world as adult wasps.Parasitoid wasps are a diverse and abundant component of agricultural ecosystems. They are only parasitic while in their larval stage. While some parasitoid wasps target invertebrates that we humans “like,” the majority of the estimated 600,000 species prey upon pests that attack our food crops, making them our allies despite their ghoulish habits.To read the rest, click on "Parasitoid Wasps Shed Light on the Origin of Venom". Also, a short, fascinating, and somewhat grisly video is below. allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ovo_T0KqdYg?rel=0" width="560">[...]

If you want to know something for certain, check with a reliable eyewitness. Better yet, go and look for yourself. When it comes to universal common ancestor evolution, by definition, there can be no eyewitnesses. To go and look requires time travel, and there is no sign of that happening.Credit: Pixabay / HypnoArtOf course, you can also employ the complex evolutionary principle of Making Things Up™ and build your own alternate history. Imagine an ancient protein that existed 500 million Darwin years ago, and use some biochemical work in your imagination. Lots of inference, but no real science. Hard to believe that people take these scientists seriously, and even pay them. Evolutionists are desperate to keep their death cult going because there is no evidence for their beliefs, so they go haywire trying to make up their own realities. Otherwise, they have to admit the truth of the Creator, the eyewitness, and learn what he has to say.As the old saying goes, “ABC” or Anything But Creation. In the case of a recent report, evolutionists look to chance and “molecular time travel” (as the article calls it) rather than the Creator as the explanation for their theory.Recently, secular scientists revealed their speculation of alternate evolutionary histories by studying a protein they supposed existed half a billion years ago. Using a large “set of genetic variants” from “a resurrected version of an ancient protein” they theoretically discovered “a myriad of other ways that evolution could have” occurred. Are they on to something valid or is this another unsupported speculation?It won't take too much of your time to read the rest of the article. Just click on "Evolutionists Embrace Time Travel and Alternate Histories". allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qOuXPumL3l8?rel=0" width="560">[...]

If you care to examine the evidence and pay even a little bit of attention to the secular science news, you will see that image of the impartial, unbiased scientist has ridden off into the sunset.The unbiased scientist will never come back, because that was entirely a myth. Scientists are human, and have worldviews into which they try to see if the evidence fits. In the case of evolution, the evidence most definitely does not fit reality, so they tamper with definitions and even the facts so they can say, "Aha! Evolution!"Credit: Freeimages / Richard Dunstan (modified)It is a demonstrated fact that the secular science industry is becoming increasingly leftist in its research and conclusions — especially when logic and facts are twisted to achieve the illogical conclusions that sidewinders desire. One of the popular items is transgenderism. In the United States, the estimate is less than one half of one percent of the population identifies as transgender, but the way leftists, social justice warriors of the left, anti-Christian bigots, and politicians distort that number, it seems much larger than is supported by reality.Some folks try to use evolution to justify "gender fluidity", where someone's gender "identity" can change, even by the hour. (This must cause extra washing on laundry day.) They also try to use science to defend transgenderism. This is impossible, as there is no scientific research to support the idea that someone can change their sex. People who claim that a sex can be changed through surgery are science deniers.Also, there seems to be a distinction between sex (the biological aspect) and gender (the way society perceives people). I remember being involved in a forum that was all about men's concerns. Many people wondered what it means to be a man. Some people felt that a "real" man is interested in sports, motor vehicle mechanic work, and so on. This definition of "man" involved protecting the family, loyalty, hunting, and similar things that belong to the manly stereotype. They did not know how to deal with the fact that many women do the same things! Also, since I am not into sports, automobiles, hunting, and so on, I must not be a real man. However, I am confident in my masculinity. I wonder how they felt about manly men who would participate in needlepoint, knitting, and other activities that typically belong to women. In some cultures, whether isolated from those who are technologically advanced, or in developed urban areas, men will be the ones involved in typically female activities around the home. That does not make them transgender or less manly! They remain men. This also applies to when women take on duties or employment that are often associated with men; they do not change sexes. It is also true when men and women simply do not feel like being typical, and being involved in activities that are not typically associated with their sex, and then going back to their usual roles later.Some animals can change their sex when necessary (clownfish are all born male), but this is an aspect of our Creator's design and genetic engineering. Some owlhoot evolutionists are changing the definitions of male and female, and of transgenderism, to suit their leftist proclivities. That's not being scientific, that's just sneaky. Also, slapping "evolution" like a bumper sticker onto the research is disingenuous, since this has nothing to do with evolution.In reality, human transgenderism has nothing to do with biology (except in rare cases involving birth defects, but the exception does not establish a rule). We are n[...]

When traveling the countryside of Britain, you may come cross burial mounds (passage graves, cairns, barrows, tumuli, and other names). They are indeed mounds, and locals pay them no nevermind for the most part because they have a passel of them. Megalithic monuments in England such as Stonehenge and Rollright are famous, and it helps that they're out in the open and all. Head north of Stonehenge, then east, and cross the Irish Sea, and you'll eventually reach a somewhat newer entry into the category. In County Meath, Ireland, is a structure known as Newgrange. It was just another lump until the entrance was found in 1699. New Agers are fond of these structures, which are found on the evidence-free "ley lines". The group Celtic Woman remade the song "Newgrange", originally recorded by Clannad. The song mentions Druids and a forgotten race, but there is really no way of knowing who built Newgrange, and why. The purpose is disputed as well. Burial chamber? Solstice observatory? Both? Something else? The discovery is rather fascinating.Credit: Pixabay / hbieserSomething worthy of creationary research is the abundance of similar burial mounds all over the world, including stone chambers and mounds in New England. People are puzzled that there may have been communication between ancient Americas and Europe way back yonder. Mayhaps a creationary explanation is that this could be another example of people bringing their memories and legends after the dispersal at Babel? It may be worth a look.Some archaeologists cogitate that Newgrange is a few hundred years older than Stonehenge. How do they know this? Radiocarbon dating. However, the selected age fits with secular opinions, and creationists want to know if radiocarbon dating is reliable, and how it was calibrated. (The unreliable orbital tuning to calibrate for ice cores method comes to mind.) When assumptions are made before testing, the results are predetermined, so the secular bias rules the day. That's how it works. In reality, a great deal of work needs to be done, without secular assumptions, to determine a more accurate date for Newgrange.Clearly something is wrong with radiocarbon dates, but what? As an astronomer who analyzes how humans mark time by the regular movement of celestial bodies, I have long wondered whether different branches of science could work together to solve these questions. If we could somehow find a reliable, independent astronomical way to date stone structures, perhaps we could show how older radiocarbon “dates” must be revised to match these more accurate astronomical dates, which are certain to line up with the Bible’s timeline.To read the entire article, click on "Uncovering Assumptions at Newgrange".The barrow at Newgrange is a fascinating discovery, and it puzzles archaeologists. Another area of interest is whether the date assigned to it can be reconciled to biblical chronology.[...]

Proponents of microbes-to-man evolution have their naturalistic starting point for their presuppositions and the way they interpret evidence, and biblical creationists stand on the revelation of God's inerrant Word. Evolutionists have a simplistic view of the origin of language, which is essentially grunts and such to form words to communicate danger or various needs. Creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve as fully operational intelligent beings, which includes the ability to use languages. A serious examination of the languages after the confusion and dispersal at Babel strongly supports the creationary view.Credit: Pixabay / Roger Casco HerreraA simple way to see that, contrary to evolutionary viewpoints, languages have become less complicated over time. Ever read a book from the 19th century or earlier? Literature from back then is often more elegant, with a richer vocabulary.Let's take a look at how language and spelling has changed in a few English language Bibles.Most Bible readers are comfortable with modern translations, and have to slow down to read their King James Version (most commonly, it is the 1769 version). The actual 1677 KJV is considerably different. Let's look at Genesis 11:8-9 in that version: "So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence, vpon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the Citie. Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad vpon the face of all the earth".The Geneva Bible of 1587 gives us: "So ye Lord scattered them from thence vpon all the earth, & they left off to build the citie. Therefore the name of it was called Babel, because the Lorde did there confounde the language of all the earth: from thence then did the Lord scatter them vpon all the earth".Moving back 1526 Tyndale version: "Thus ye LORde skatered them from thence vppon all the erth. And they left of to buylde the cyte. Wherfore the name of it is called Babell because that the LORDE there confounded the tonge of all the world. And because that the LORde from thence skatered them abrode vppon all the erth." You can see some differences, but let's add one more, the Wycliffe Bible from the late 1300s: " And so the Lord departide hem fro that place in to alle londis; and thei cessiden to bielde a cytee. And therfor the name therof was clepid Babel, for the langage of al erthe was confoundide there; and fro thennus the Lord scaterede hem on the face of alle cuntrees".Just for fun, you can see and hear the Old English Beowulf (from about 975-1025) at this link. I have no problem admitting that I need the translation. Was the Grendel dragon a dinosaur? Just wondering.Enough with the English history, and let's dig a bit deeper into languages themselves. There are language groups. Some of the ancient texts are exceptionally complex and difficult to categorize, let alone, translate. Ancient languages have deteriorated over the years (there are marked difference between New Testament koine Greek and modern Greek, including subtleties and tenses). Some languages have ceased to exist, which increases the difficulties of translation.There is no evidence that languages evolved, conjectures presented as science notwithstanding. Actually, languages have devolved.Evolutionary theory, when applied to origins of language, fails utterly to explain the phenomena of original complexity, subsequent loss and degeneration, and the array of unrelated languages in antiquity that even [...]

The piffle of human evolution is becoming more risible with the passage of time. New members are hurridedly added to the ancestral parade with great fanfare, only to be quietly removed when sufficient data is collected. Darwinian mythology is presented as science, and timelines frequently need substantial revision, whether in human or other life forms. It happened again.Source: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880sTools and tools were discovered that sent repercussions through the "out of Africa" scenario, both with the dating and location of our putative origins. One of the main problems with evolutionism is the presuppositions that control the story. Seems like they'd have themselves a confab and say, "This ain't happening. Mayhaps we should take a serious look at the true human history of creation as recorded in Genesis. After all, creationists don't have these problems!" Not likely, since they're committed to naturalism, and there is no room for the Creator in their historical fictions.Evolutionary scientists recently announced that fossils from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, dated at around 300,000 years old, are the oldest Homo sapiens fossils ever discovered. This claim is based on the shape of a skull and the presence of stone tools at the site. This represents a potential rewrite to the human evolution story that pushes back the origin of “modern” humans by 100,000 years. It would also suggest that the “cradle of civilization” included the entire African continent rather than just eastern Africa, as long claimed by evolutionists.Even the pro-evolution magazine Scientific American acknowledged that these Moroccan fossils “mess up” the accepted human evolution story. Why?To read the rest of their consternation, click on "The Ever-Evolving Human Evolution Story".The story of human evolution needs to be rewritten again. This time, fossils and tools mess up the timeline and the alleged location of our ancestral origins.[...]

When we see the design in living things and want to know how they have their characteristics, we have to think small. Very small, but with big concepts, all the way down to the molecular level. It's a matter of information. DNA, RNA, chromosomes, and so on are communicating information to not only in the building of an organism, but to keep it going. The information must have a source.Credit: Freeimages / Krzysztof (Kriss) SzkurlatowskiThose believing in muck-to-man evolution are constantly dealing with the source and uses of information in living things. They try and fail to conjure up plausible origin of life scenarios, including the desperate "RNA world" for self-replicating systems concept, and then try to explain how living things are encoded with the ability to self-adapt to changing situations. They don't give us anything real to hang our hats on in their efforts to deny the reality of our Creator who gave us life.The greatest challenge for evolutionary biology is to account for the information found in codes in DNA, RNA, proteins, and more recently in the epigenome. The mutation/selection mechanism of neo-Darwinism, although still taught in biology textbooks, has been shown inadequate by creation and intelligent design scientists. Indeed, even some leading evolutionists are seeking alternative mechanisms such as self-organization. Much evidence has been found against neo-Darwinism (and all related stochastic processes) and for intelligent design (ID) in recent years. Intelligent design advocates have found ways to detect design. Much evidence has been found against the macroevolution of Homo sapiens and for the biblical origin of mankind.Evolutionists must account for the origin of life, the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record, living fossils, the lack of transitional forms, the origin of sexuality, the origin of consciousness, the origin of information in macroevolution, the origin of irreducibly complex molecular machines, convergent evolution, and the information found in the epigenome.To read the rest, click on "The Origin of Information in Biology".Information is vital to the origin, design, and function of living things. Believers in muck-to-man evolution are unable to present plausible ideas and models for these things, yet they persist in denying the obvious evidence of our Creator's work. [...]

In AD 79. an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius suddenly wiped out the inhabitants of the Roman town of Pompeii, among others. That bad boy has not remained silent, and could be devastating to the 3,000,000 people in the area, who ignored the idea of not living near an active volcano. Didn't work for people in 79. (Useless trivia: Pompeii is pronounced pom-PAY, but a small community in Gratiot County, Michigan has the same spelling, and locals pronounce it POM-pay-eye. I was laughed at for using that pronunciation because as a kid, I lived near there, and did not know the real way.) So anyway, the tons of ash that fell on Pompeii was an effective preservative, and archaeologists have made many interesting discoveries.The Last Day of Pompeii / Karl Bryullov, 1833Apostate clergyman Steve Chalke, who denies original sin in Genesis 3 and affirms the Pelagian heresy, believes that "erotic art" excavated by archaeologists at Pompeii refutes established Christian understandings of Paul's teachings about homosexuality. How Chalke diagrams his logic on the blackboard is unknown. He is joining in with other owlhoots who say that in Romans 1, Paul was only speaking of sexual abuse, but thought that same-sex "marriage" was acceptable. Such a claim impugns the integrity of God, the establishment of marriage in Genesis, its affirmation by Jesus, and implies that God is willing to let people misunderstand his word for 2,000 years.In a recent lecture, a professing evangelical pastor in the UK, Steve Chalke argued1 that ancient erotic art from Pompeii, an ancient Roman town buried by a volcanic eruption in AD 79, shows that “New Testament verses that are used routinely to label same-sex activity as sinful were, in fact” not doing so.Christians “Throw Bible Verses Around Without . . . Context”Chalke reportedly asserted that “because of widespread ignorance of the ancient world and Graeco-Roman culture in churches across the West, we throw Bible verses around without understanding their context.” These pieces of explicit artwork supposedly provide the context to show that the New Testament is “condemning the abusive and exploitative sexual activity common in the world that Paul’s recipients lived in” rather than forbidding “faithful gay relationships” among Christians.To finish reading, click on "Does Ancient Art from Pompeii Prove the Bible Supports Gay 'Marriage'?" Excavated items from Pompeii are being used to justify same-sex relationships. Not only is the logic poor, but the theology in play is outrageous.[...]

It's natural for parents to try to shield their children from harmful things, but that can to too far and turn into "smother love". Some Christian parents have the incorrect notion that their kids should never learn about evolution. That's unrealistic, since the owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch control government-run indoctrination centers (schools), the media, secular science, public opinion, and much more. They're going to learn about it, so what can Bible-believing parents do?Credit: Pixabay / 7854Out there in the real world (with a passel of help from the internet), there are sidewinders who actively attack God, the Bible, the Resurrection, creation, and other Christian beliefs. They will selectively cite data, misquote the Bible, use fake science (such as the "Canaanites disprove the Bible" fiasco or the "family tomb of Jesus" nonsense), and especially evolution. Evolution is foundational to atheism and many (if not most) secularist views.Other attacks on our faith can be investigated and dealt with (often by simply waiting for more information), so let's focus on evolution. Christians need to be proactive. We know kids are going to learn about evolution, and some parents teach it to their own children. The difference is that the wise parent will teach it properly. In schools and such, the sanitized version of evolution is given, where flaws in the theory are ignored, and fanciful tales are presented as if they were science.Take the kids to the natural history museums, and show them just how unnatural they are. As before, stories are presented as facts, our putative evolutionary apelike ancestors have suspiciously human-looking eyes when no scientist has any idea what the eyes actually looked like, so people are seeing opinions presented as scientific fact. I've read about parents and Christian teachers that took children to museums, and they troubled the guides' propaganda by raising points and asking questions.Schools are dreadful at teaching critical thinking skills nowadays, and creation science ministries emphasize those skills. When presented with claims, the properly educated student or adult can ask probing questions, consider the theory of knowledge behind the claims, realize that most evolutionists have a materialist atheistic worldview that rejects facts that they dislike, and so on. We can prepare children for the lies they are going to be told, and how to deal with them.Some parents are afraid that teaching their children unbiblical ideas like evolution or atheistic arguments would cause them to stumble in their faith, but the opposite is true. Our children are going to be exposed to evolution whether we like it or not. It’s not a matter of ‘if’; it’s a matter of ‘when’. Knowing this, one of the best things we can do for our children is to teach them unbiblical ideas, or in short, how the world thinks. Because if we do not, others will provide seeming explanations that might seem more plausible.I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article. Just click on "'What?… Teach my children unbiblical ideas?' — Inoculate your children against compromise by teaching them the answers". IN ADDITION, I hope you'll read this informative article as well, "Seven ways to build a lighthouse — How Christian parents can help their kids navigate evolutionary education". B[...]